A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry
From: Peter Riedt on 21 Jun 2010 22:39 On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > swing that is governed > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > rate of time. > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > according to > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > affect > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > faster the weights > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > Peter Riedt > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > rate of time. Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but not time. Peter Riedt
From: harald on 22 Jun 2010 05:24 On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > [..] > > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > > swing that is governed > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > > rate of time. > > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > > according to > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > > affect > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > > faster the weights > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > > Peter Riedt > > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > > rate of time. > > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > not time. > > Peter Riedt Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of physical processes. As you put it: "A unit of time is an arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define it as such: "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature to function or progress." Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about words. Harald
From: Peter Riedt on 22 Jun 2010 20:40 On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > > > swing that is governed > > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > > > rate of time. > > > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do > > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > > > according to > > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > > > affect > > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > > > faster the weights > > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > > > Peter Riedt > > > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > > > rate of time. > > > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > > not time. > > > Peter Riedt > > Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > physical processes. As you put it: > > "A unit of time is an > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > it as such: > "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > to function or progress." > > Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > words. > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without remembering the status before the change or planning the status after the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up. However, the rate of change can vary. Our failure to differentiate between time and change leads to difficulties but our concepts of time make it possible for us to express change quantitatively. Peter Riedt
From: Androcles on 22 Jun 2010 20:50 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:0bff0fd8-0b77-469c-b59d-56c7dc17210a(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > > > > > > 86400 seconds or > > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > > > > > > swing that is governed > > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is > > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > > > > > > rate of time. > > > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a > > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and > > > > > forces do > > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > > > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time > > > > according to > > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. Forces > > > > affect > > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the > > > > faster the weights > > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. > > > > > Peter Riedt > > > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of > > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters the > > > rate of time. > > > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect > > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but > > not time. > > > Peter Riedt > > Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of > physical processes. As you put it: > > "A unit of time is an > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." > > You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the > observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define > it as such: > "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > to function or progress." > > Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the > rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally > slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do > you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? > > It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about > words. > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; ============================================== Bullshit.
From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 21:23
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:0bff0fd8-0b77-469c-b59d-56c7dc17210a(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 22, 5:24 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Jun 22, 4:39 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 19, 7:51 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jun 18, 11:19 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> >> > > > > [..] >> >> > > > > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or >> > > > > > 86400 seconds or >> > > > > > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum >> > > > > > swing that is governed >> > > > > > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that >> > > > > > occurs repeatedly but there is >> > > > > > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the >> > > > > > rate of time. >> >> > > > > Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a >> > > > > physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and >> > > > > forces do >> > > > > not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. >> >> > > > Harald, no confusion here. The clock is a device to measure time >> > > > according to >> > > > human concepts and requirements. A clock does not equal time. >> > > > Forces >> > > > affect >> > > > clock rates, i.e. the greater a gravitational attraction is, the >> > > > faster the weights >> > > > that drive a pendulum clock will descend. >> >> > > > Peter Riedt >> >> > > You have that backwards Peter. Increased gravity slows the rate of >> > > time. Increased velocity slows time. You are right, gravity alters >> > > the >> > > rate of time. >> >> > Mathal, not at all. If I said that I was wrong. Gravity will affect >> > processes, devices (example clocks), substances and life forms but >> > not time. >> >> > Peter Riedt >> >> Peter, according to you (and me), "time" is a measure of progress of >> physical processes. As you put it: >> >> "A unit of time is an >> arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and >> derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process." >> >> You also agree that "time" is just a human concept, based on the >> observation of such physical processes, and that we are free to define >> it as such: >> "Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature >> to function or progress." >> >> Thus if we define a "time" standard as such processes (for example the >> rate of atomic clocks), and if all such processes happen to be equally >> slowed down due to some cause (as you admit to be possible), why do >> you object to calling that a slowdown of "time"? >> >> It appears that you are just degrading this to a disagreement about >> words. >> >> Harald- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > only humans do. Just as nature doesn't use length or mass etc. > Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without You can't have change without time > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > the change. Before and after means time > As time does not exist, But you've just implied that it does .. you talk about before and after > it cannot slow down or speed up. Well. .time DOES exist, and so it can > However, the rate of change can vary. Which is what we call time > Our failure to differentiate > between time and change leads to difficulties but our concepts of time > make it possible for us to express change quantitatively. Explain how you can have time without change, or change without time? It seems you're getting all worked up over what words to use .. and for some reason do not like using the word time. |